Pending
before the Court are four motions for appointment of lead
counsel (Dkt. #19, 21, 49, 73). The Court, having considered
the relevant pleadings and relevant case law, finds that the
Motion of Alameda County Employees' Retirement
Association and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, Approval of Selection of
Counsel, and Consolidation of Related Actions (Dkt. # 19)
should be granted.

BACKGROUND

On
October 27, 2016, named Plaintiff Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System filed this federal securities class action
“on behalf of all person who purchased the Class A
common shares of [Adeptus Health, Inc. (“Adeptus
Health”)] pursuant to [Adeptus Health's] secondary
public offering on or about July 31, 2015 . . . and on behalf
of purchasers of [Adeptus Health's] common shares between
April 23, 2015 and November 16, 2015.”
(“Oklahoma Class”) (Dkt. #1 at 1). This
action was consolidated with: (1) an action filed by
Laborers' Local 235 Benefit Funds “on behalf of all
persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
[Adeptus Health] Class A common shares between June 25, 2014
and November 1, 2016, ” (“Laborors'
Local Class”); (2) an action filed by Winston Kim
“on behalf of all persons and entities . . . who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of [Adeptus Health] from April 29, 2016 through
March 1, 2017, ” (“Kim Class”);
and (3) an action filed by Sascha Troll “on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons . . . who purchased or
otherwise acquired [Adeptus Health] securities between April
29, 2016 and March 1, 2017, ” (“Troll
Class”). Adeptus Health filed bankruptcy petitions on
April 19, 2017, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Texas. The Court stayed the claims as to
Adeptus Health (Dkt. #51); however, the parties urge the
Court to decide the motions for appointment of lead plaintiff
in order to represent the class in the bankruptcy proceedings
(Dkt. # 80).

The
PSLRA establishes the procedure for appointing a lead
plaintiff in an action “that is brought as a plaintiff
class action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(1). The PSLRA
requires that within twenty days after filing the class
action, “the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be
published, in a widely circulated national business-oriented
publication or wire service, a notice advising members of the
purported plaintiff class: (1) of the pendency of the action,
the claims asserted therein, and the purported class period;
and (2) that, not later than [sixty] days after the date on
which the notice is published, any member of the purported
class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the
purported class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).
The Court must then appoint the “most capable of
adequately representing the interests of class
members.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i). After
deciding any pending motion to consolidate the related
actions, the Court shall consider any motion made by a
purported class member to serve as lead plaintiff. 15 U.S.C.
§ 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(ii).

The
PSLRA requires all proposed lead plaintiffs to submit a sworn
declaration to assure the Court that the proposed plaintiff:
(1) has suffered financial harm; (2) is not a serial
litigant; and (3) is interested and able to serve as lead
plaintiff. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(2)(A). There is then a
“rebuttable presumption” that the most adequate
plaintiff has: (1) either filed the complaint or made a
motion in response to a notice; (2) the largest financial
interest in the relief sought by the class during the
proposed class period; and (3) otherwise satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I). The
presumption can be rebutted only when a class member offers
proof that the presumptive lead plaintiff “will not
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class” or is “subject to unique defenses that
render such plaintiff incapable of adequately representing
the class.” 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).

ANALYSIS

Three
movants request that the Court appoint them as lead plaintiff
and approve their choice of lead counsel. The Court will
address the request of each movant.

I.
Lead Plaintiff

The
Court will go through the analysis of the three factors
contained in Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii) to determine which
party is presumed to be the most adequate plaintiff.

A.
Procedural Requirements

There
is no dispute that the Retirement Group and the Pension Fund
met the procedural requirements of Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)
because both the Retirement Group and the Pension Fund timely
moved for appointment of lead counsel. However, the parties
dispute whether the Adeptus Investor Group filed its motion
in a timely fashion.

The
Retirement Group and the Pension Fund argue that notice went
out on October 27, 2016. The notice informed potential
plaintiffs that, if they wanted to be considered for
appointment as lead plaintiff, they needed to file a motion
by December 27, 2016. Because the Adeptus Investor Group
filed its renewed motion on July 13, 2017, the Retirement
Group and the Pension Fund argue that Adeptus Investor
Group's renewed motion is late pursuant to Section
78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i).[1]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Adeptus Investor Group responds that because it moved to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the Kim action and on
behalf of the Kim Class and Troll Class,
its motion is timely. The Adeptus Investor Group asserts that
it filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff within
sixty days of the notice filed in the Kim action.
(Dkt. # 81 at 3). Adeptus Investor Group argues that the
allegations in the Kim and Troll actions
are &ldquo;that, during a class period running from April 29,
2016 through March 1, 2017, Defendants failed to disclose
material weaknesses in [Adeptus Health&#39;s] internal
control over financial reporting.&rdquo; Id. at 2.
Adeptus Investor Group compares these allegations to the
contentions in the Oklahoma and Laborers&#39;
Local action that “during a class period running
from June 25, 2014 through November 1, 2016, Defendants
misled Adeptus shareholders about widespread predatory
billing practices and failed to advise them that [Adeptus
Health's] financial ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.